Baseball Hall of Fame -2012

[gladdenguy]

Hopefully Moeller High School Crusader, Michigan Wolverine, and Cincinnati Red....
Barry Larkin will be elected to the Hall of Fame in less than 2 hours.

I will be following Barry to Cooperstown this July 22nd. Anybody else going?

[X-band '01]

86% of the vote - go ahead and make plans for Cooperstown this summer.

At 67%, Jack Morris now is "on the bubble" for 2013 when many asterisk players become eligible for induction.

Well done Barry!

[Porkopolis]

Congrats Barry!

[BBC 08]

Shame that Mark McGwire won't be getting in.

[LadyMuskie]

I'm really happy for Barry and his family. That's a great accomplishment and he definitely deserves it. He was and will probably always be my favorite Red.

[gladdenguy]

Shame that Mark McGwire won't be getting in.

Liar and a cheat.....not a shame at all.

[BBC 08]

Liar and a cheat.....not a shame at all.

He only lied about being a thief...I mean, cheat.

I've watched Ocean's 11 way too many times.

[LadyMuskie]

Liar and a cheat.....not a shame at all.

It's a bit of a shame because he might have made it into the Hall even if he hadn't broken Maris's record, but instead he chose to be an egotistical moron lacking in the good sense God gave a goat and took the drugs. The point is, no one - not him or his fans- will ever know if he would have been good enough to get in without cheating, and that cheating is all he'll ever be remembered for in years to come. I dislike him (and have since he played for the A's in 90) but it is sad because he has no one else to blame but himself and he ruined it all.

[bleedXblue]

McGuire was a great player without it ?

Now, I can understand why a Brett Boone would do it, but McGuire could have hit 600 HR's without it ?

He has to wake up every day regretting that decision.

[nuts4xu]

First Greater Cincinnati native to be elected to the HOF by the baseball writer's association. It should have been Pete, but it is a tremendous honor and I am thrilled for Barry Larkin.

It is amazing to think the stats he could have put up had he stayed healthy during his careeer.

[toledodan]

Congrats to Lark!!!! As for Big Mac, he was one of my favorites growing up. He was a hall of fame talent who made a hall of fame mistake. As much as i would love to see him in one day, he did it to himself.

[BlueGuy]

86% of the vote - go ahead and make plans for Cooperstown this summer.

I live just an hour away. I'll see you all there!

[AdamtheFlyer]

Everyone has childhood sports heroes, Barry Larkin was mine. I wore #11 in every sport, I played SS from t-ball through the end of my baseball days. Barry will always be my favorite athlete of all time. Seeing the announcement brought out the kid in me. So happy for him.

[SixFig]

Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff and deserve induction.

I don't understand why writers make players "wait". Did Larkin become better over these last three years? Either you are a HOFer or you aren't

[BlueGuy]

Tim Raines, Jeff Bagwell, Jack Morris, Lee Smith, Edgar Martinez and Fred McGriff and deserve induction.

I don't understand why writers make players "wait". Did Larkin become better over these last three years? Either you are a HOFer or you aren't

Did you hear Gammons on ESPN today? He said he voted for Jack Morris the last three years, but DID NOT vote for him this year. Huh?!?! The voting makes zero sense. I guess in Gammons eyes, Morris got worse this past year.

[gladdenguy]

I live just an hour away. I'll see you all there!

Blueguy, what is the best airport to fly into if im heading to cooperstown?

Thanks

[BlueGuy]

Blueguy, what is the best airport to fly into if im heading to cooperstown?

Thanks

Cooperstown is kinda in the middle of no-mans land... I'd say Albany. If the price is right, Syracuse or Binghamton are a little further away. If you've never been to Cooperstown, make the trip. Induction weekend, it's the greatest place on earth. Main street is literally lined with HOFers ( the stores set up tables and charge for autographs). The paying for autographs is lame as it gets, but you can walk right up to them and say hi for free. The atmosphere is amazing.

[Fireball]

It's awesome that Barry made it. It was even better to see him and Eric Davis talking on MLB network today. I liked Barry, but ED is my favorite player. Lots of Reds love and 1990 World Series highlights on the TV today. Loved it!

[DC Muskie]

Even though I hate the concept of Hall of Fames, congrats to Larkin and all Reds fans. Well deserved. They don't make em like Barry anymore.

[Juice]

Did you hear Gammons on ESPN today? He said he voted for Jack Morris the last three years, but DID NOT vote for him this year. Huh?!?! The voting makes zero sense. I guess in Gammons eyes, Morris got worse this past year.

I don't mind it because Morris doesn't belong in. Gammons is simply getting it right.

[MHettel]

First and foremost, congrats to the reds fans. Always nice to have a player make the hall.

But on paper, larkin is woefully short of Hall credentials.

When was teh last time NOBODY made the hall of fame? I think Larkin might have been in the right place at the right time on this one.

An honest critique of larkin.

First of all, I'd take him on my team. Shortstops used to be very light hitting, and he was one of teh first tyo come around with some offensive pop. but just because I'd take him doesnt make him a HOFer.

3000 hits is pretty much a hall guarantee. Before steroids, so was 500 homers. longevity often comes into play, and winning sure helps. Playing a key position helps too.

Larkin missed 3000 hits by 660. Thats enormous. with just 198 homers, he's well off the magic number as a slugger, but thats good pop for a shortstop.

He won one world series, and made the playoffs twice in his career.

he was a 6 time all-star....over 19 seasons. it's hard to say that he was one of the best shortstops in history, when in 2/3rds of his seasons he wasn't even one of the best 2 in a 15 team league.

Take out his rookie year, and the strikeshortened year (1994), and you'll see that Larkin missed 20 or more games 11 times. Also taking out his rookie and the strike year, he averaged just 119 games a year.

he never had 35 doubles, and only 10 triples once (averaged 4 per year). he had a freak year with 33 homers in 1996, but only had 20 (exactly 20) one other time. His 33 HRs in 1996 was almost 17% of his career total.

he stole some bases, but his 379 swipes puts him 87 on the all time list.

he had decent amount of walks, and low strikeout totals. And a career average of .295 with 9 seasons over .300 (in my mind, his biggest accomplishement).

So I cannot figure it out. I must assume it was his defense, but he won only 3 gold gloves, so i'm not sure there either.

What am i missing? If he's a thirdbaseman, firstbaseman or outfielder, he's off the ballot after not getting enough votes in his first year.

I truly stumped. . Someone make a case for him.

And i'm not bashing him. like i said he was a very good player and i'd take him in an instant. But I'm looking at the guys that didnt make it and I see Jeff Bagwell and Fred McGriff and Larry Walker and apparenly Juan Gonzalez only got 23 votes, so I guess he's off the ballot. That guy was an MVP candidate for about 6-7 years in a row... Throw in Tim Raines and Edgar martinez and Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. I seriously cannot distinguish Larkin as the HOFer from these other guys....

[Juice]

First and foremost, congrats to the reds fans. Always nice to have a player make the hall.

But on paper, larkin is woefully short of Hall credentials.

When was teh last time NOBODY made the hall of fame? I think Larkin might have been in the right place at the right time on this one.

An honest critique of larkin.

First of all, I'd take him on my team. Shortstops used to be very light hitting, and he was one of teh first tyo come around with some offensive pop. but just because I'd take him doesnt make him a HOFer.

3000 hits is pretty much a hall guarantee. Before steroids, so was 500 homers. longevity often comes into play, and winning sure helps. Playing a key position helps too.

Larkin missed 3000 hits by 660. Thats enormous. with just 198 homers, he's well off the magic number as a slugger, but thats good pop for a shortstop.

He won one world series, and made the playoffs twice in his career.

he was a 6 time all-star....over 19 seasons. it's hard to say that he was one of the best shortstops in history, when in 2/3rds of his seasons he wasn't even one of the best 2 in a 15 team league.

Take out his rookie year, and the strikeshortened year (1994), and you'll see that Larkin missed 20 or more games 11 times. Also taking out his rookie and the strike year, he averaged just 119 games a year.

he never had 35 doubles, and only 10 triples once (averaged 4 per year). he had a freak year with 33 homers in 1996, but only had 20 (exactly 20) one other time. His 33 HRs in 1996 was almost 17% of his career total.

he stole some bases, but his 379 swipes puts him 87 on the all time list.

he had decent amount of walks, and low strikeout totals. And a career average of .295 with 9 seasons over .300 (in my mind, his biggest accomplishement).

So I cannot figure it out. I must assume it was his defense, but he won only 3 gold gloves, so i'm not sure there either.

What am i missing? If he's a thirdbaseman, firstbaseman or outfielder, he's off the ballot after not getting enough votes in his first year.

I truly stumped. . Someone make a case for him.

And i'm not bashing him. like i said he was a very good player and i'd take him in an instant. But I'm looking at the guys that didnt make it and I see Jeff Bagwell and Fred McGriff and Larry Walker and apparenly Juan Gonzalez only got 23 votes, so I guess he's off the ballot. That guy was an MVP candidate for about 6-7 years in a row... Throw in Tim Raines and Edgar martinez and Dale Murphy and Don Mattingly. I seriously cannot distinguish Larkin as the HOFer from these other guys....

1) He was an All Star 12 times, not 6.
2) Larkin had a career .366 wOBA — better than the career numbers for Hall of Fame shortstops Banks, Pee Wee Reese, Cal Ripken Jr., Robin Yount, Dave Bancroft, and Bobby Wallace.
3) Larkin won nine Silver Sluggers. You know how many infielders have won more in the history of the award? Exactly one: Alex Rodriguez (who won 10).
4) That .815 career OPS was 137 points higher than the average shortstop of his era (.678). His .444 career slugging percentage was 83 points higher. His .371 OBP was 54 points higher. And his .295 lifetime average was 39 points higher.
5) In 1996 became the first shortstop in Major League history to produce 30 homers and 30 steals in the same season.
6) According to baseball historian Bill James is “one of the 10 most complete players in history” and the sixth-greatest shortstop ever behind Hall of Famers Honus Wagner, Arky Vaughan, Cal Ripken Jr., Robin Yount and Ernie Banks and just ahead of Ozzie Smith.
(Side Note: Yount played about half of his games at SS so I don't think he really counts)

There are so many more reasons.
I copy and pasted a lot of this stuff from articles.

[chico]

Larkin's .371 OBP meant he took a lot of walks. I would think that would carry some weight with someone like you.

Juice pretty much summed it up. Not to mention he was one of the most electrifying players in the 90's and one of the most dangerous hitters of his era. Whenever the Reds needed a clutch hit, Larkin got it.

Compare him to other shortstops of his era and prior, and you'll see why Bill James calls him one of the greatest shortstops ever to play the game. But what does he know.

You mention all these stats - none comes out and says hall of famer, but you need to take them all in total, and when you do that you see that the man did not have a weakness. Speed, power, fielding, leadership - you name it, he had it.

[waggy]

His brother is Byron. Duh.

[AdamtheFlyer]

Hall of Fame criteria really isn't about stats. It's about being clearly one of the best players of your era. The stats take care of themselves. With Larkin, his ability was so clearly great everyone knows he was an elite player for well over a decade, despite constant injuries (due to playing on concrete with a thin layer of felt on top). From '88-'99 he was the best player at his position in the game. That's 12 seasons.

Barry Larkin was the first 30/30 SS in the history of the game. Baseball had been played with stats being kept for over 100 years, and he did something no one had ever done before. He changed the way the position of SS was played. Ripken brought offense to the SS position, Ozzie Smith brought eye popping athleticism, Larkin brought all 5 tools. Hall of freaking Fame.

[Jumpy]

MHettel's just mad because, as time moves on, people are starting to recognize that Ozzie Smith was the most over-rated player of his time and B. Lark is now getting the attention he deserved then.

[Cincypunk.org]

MHettel's just mad because, as time moves on, people are starting to recognize that Ozzie Smith was the most over-rated player of his time and B. Lark is now getting the attention he deserved then.

Props. I always raged growing up when people wouldn't recognize Larkin's superiority to flippin Ozzie Smith.

[Jumpy]

Props. I always raged growing up when people wouldn't recognize Larkin's superiority to flippin Ozzie Smith.

Cards fans are a silly bunch. Even they know Smith was a POS. They secretively neg rep me for speaking the truth, but they won't even attempt to come on the thread and defend him publicly.

Just because a guy can do a back flip makes him the greatest SS of his generation. Psh. I can spin a pen around my thumb, does that make me the best message board writer of my generation?

[XU 87]

But on paper, larkin is woefully short of Hall credentials.

he was a 6 time all-star....over 19 seasons. it's hard to say that he was one of the best shortstops in history, when in 2/3rds of his seasons he wasn't even one of the best 2 in a 15 team league.

So I cannot figure it out. I must assume it was his defense, but he won only 3 gold gloves, so i'm not sure there either.

What am I missing?




You are missing the facts.

He was a 12 time all star. That in and of itself tells me that he was recognized as one of the best players at his position for many, many years.

He "only" won 3 gold gloves, but he played a big part of his career at the same time as Ozzie, who was given the gold glove as a matter of right towards the end of his career.

He also won 9 Silver Slugger awards.

But he also wore red spikes. So a few voters may have held that against him.

[BBC 08]

Oh sorry that I have an actual job that prevented me at the time to just neg rep you and not post about why Ozzie is better.

First, let's look at WAR.
Ozzie - http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/s/smito001.htm
Larkin - http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/l/larkb001.htm

Larkin beats Ozzie by 4 wins over the course of a 19 year career. In my mind, that's not that much since it averages out to .2 wins a year.

Now lets look at fielding.
Ozzie - 13 GG
Larkin - 3 GG

Range Factor per Game
Ozzie - 5.03
Larkin - 4.32

That's all I can find now on short notice.

Sorry, Ozzie was better.

[paulxu]

Free Pete!

Er...nevermind. Wrong thread.

[GoMuskies]

Oh sorry that I have an actual job that prevented me at the time to just neg rep you and not post about why Ozzie is better.

First, let's look at WAR.
Ozzie - http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/s/smito001.htm
Larkin - http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/l/larkb001.htm

Larkin beats Ozzie by 4 wins over the course of a 19 year career. In my mind, that's not that much since it averages out to .2 wins a year.

Now lets look at fielding.
Ozzie - 13 GG
Larkin - 3 GG

Range Factor per Game
Ozzie - 5.03
Larkin - 4.32

That's all I can find now on short notice.

Sorry, Ozzie was better.

So Larkin has a higher WAR, but Ozzie is better because he had more Gold Gloves? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Isn't the range factor one of the inputs in WAR?

[XU 87]

Sorry, Ozzie was better.

I'll give you that Smith was a better fielder, although I thought there was some strong opinion out there towards the end of Smith's career that Larkin deserved the GG instead of Smith. Smith was getting it on reputation towards the end.

But Smith was a mediocre hitter, even for a shortstop. In 10,778 plate appearances, he hit 28 hr's, had 793 rbi's and had 1257 runs. His OBP was .337. He had one Silver Slugger award.

In 9057 plate appearnces, Larkin had 198 hr's, 960 rbi's, 1329 runs, and had a .371 OBP. And he had 9 Silver Slugger awards. Larkin was a much better hitter. Accordingly, I could make the case that he was a little better player than Smith.

Chico, who does Bill James say is better?

[BBC 08]

So Larkin has a higher WAR, but Ozzie is better because he had more Gold Gloves? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Isn't the range factor one of the inputs in WAR?

WAR takes into account batting, which I will give that Larkin was better at. GG is strictly fielding.

[GoMuskies]

WAR takes into account batting, which I will give that Larkin was better at. GG is strictly fielding.

WAR also takes fielding into account. At least it tries through use of zone rating.

[BBC 08]

WAR also takes fielding into account. At least it tries through use of zone rating.

And I'm saying Ozzie was the better fielder. What exactly are we arguing about then?

[chico]

Chico, who does Bill James say is better?

Right here (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/larkin-for-the-hall/):

If you look at Bill James' Win Shares, a stat that attempts to combine offensive and defensive contributions, Larkin once again shows up near the top:
WS
Honus Wagner 655
Cal Ripken Jr. 427
Robin Yount 423
George Davis 398
Bill Dahlen 394
Luke Appling 378
Arky Vaughan 356
BARRY LARKIN 346
Bobby Wallace 345
Joe Cronin 333
Ozzie Smith 325
Alan Trammell 318

Larkin ranks eighth all-time in Batting Win Shares among shortstops and 23rd all-time in Fielding Win Shares. His total Win Shares ranking of eighth among shortstops is made to look less impressive by the fact that guys like Cal Ripken Jr. and Robin Yount accumulated tons of Win Shares at non-shortstop positions later in their careers. It would not be hard to argue that Larkin is one of the best handful of pure shortstops in major league history, and his case for the Hall of Fame is an extremely strong one.

[GoMuskies]

And I'm saying Ozzie was the better fielder. What exactly are we arguing about then?

I thought you were saying Ozzie was the better overall player.

[BBC 08]

I thought you were saying Ozzie was the better overall player.

I think I started to argue that then realized his batting was way less than what Larkin had. I will say though, having on average only a .2 WAR difference a year when Larkin was such a better hitter says a lot on how good defensively Ozzie was.

[SM#24]

I'm fine with both Barry and Ozzie in the Hall of Fame. I think Trammell should be in as well.

[bobbiemcgee]

Barry - 19 yrs. of excellence with one team. May not see that again. I was rooting for Crime Dog. Another great guy who just gave everything he had every time out. McGwire and his ilk should never get a vote. They should pull your press credentials if you ever vote for one of the PED boys.

[BBC 08]

They should pull your press credentials if you ever vote for one of the PED boys.

I have a hard time with this mainly because baseball as a whole was a messed up institution during the Steroid Era.

I think McGwire, Bonds, Clemens et al. deserve to be in the HoF. But once they get in there should be a note/plaque/whatever explaining the era to future generations. Explain how there was no testing and a good majority of players were using. It's an easy fix for such a widespread problem.

[SM#24]

McGwire and his ilk should never get a vote. They should pull your press credentials if you ever vote for one of the PED boys.

This is a huge debate for the next few years.
Where do you draw the line ? The Mitchell Report was far from comprehensive. If the trainers of all 30 teams talked, who knows what names would have come out.
What happens after you elect someone like Biggio, and then a couple of years later, accusations come out ?

I would not want to be an HOF voter the next several years because my opinion changes every day.
Let them all in - this approach is easy, but I don't agree with it
Don't let them in - where do you draw the line ?

[bobbiemcgee]

How would account for the inflated stats/games won bcuz some were on 'roids? One guy hits a ball 320 while another guy hits it 350 on 'roids? It was not a "level playing field" when your team was playing juiced up players. Just wrong. Drag race between 6 cyl and 8 cyl imho.

[MHettel]

My bad on the all star selections- he apparently was on the team 12 times, the ESPN data started in 1993, so he had 4 appearances prior to then. he must have had 2 games where he didnt appear.

As far as defense goes, any argument vs. Ozzie Smith is just silly. Ozzie is the absolute best defensive shortstop ever. You can see it in the defensive numbers, and you can just "see it" by watching the games.

The argument that Ozzie Smith was winning gold gloves when he shouldn't have is weak also. He played until he was 41, but his last Gold Glove (his 13th in a row) came when he was 37. Beyond that, yeah his skills diminished, and he wasn't the best in the league anymore, so yeah the time would come, but who's to say he should have won it one MORE year as opposed to one less year. And he won 13 vs. 3 for larkin. How many do you want to say were undeserved? And by the way, the winner of the award the first year after Ozzie....Jay Bell (not Larkin).

I'll give you that there is no compariosn offensively between Ozzie and larkin. Larkin was a top/middle of the order hitter while Ozzie was a top / bottom of the order hitter. Larkin wins on average and power, hands down. Ozzie had 200 more stolen bases at a slightly lower success percentage (83% vs. 80%). I think an offensive contribution that is often overlooked is Ozzie's willingness to take pitches, bunt, hit the other way, and hit and run in an effort to allow the Cardinals running game to operate. All told, Ozzie is a below average offense player in general, but a slightly above average one as a shortstop. Larkin is clearly among the top 3% of offensive players at his position, and was one of the very best ever during his time (the slugging shortstop has since evolved, diminishing some of larkins achievements).

But to me, it's just the lack of career numbers and longevity. He's 139th in career games played and 131st in hits. 108th in runs, and 142nd in plate appearances. Usually this weeds guys out. Why isn't Dale Murphy in the HOF? Really it's just becasue his career was a little too short, but while he played he was the premier slugger in the NL. But he played the EXACT same amount of games at Larkin.

How about bernie Williams? Played 100 less games than larkin and played a key defensive position. he had a similarly productive career, on a VERY good team. But he'll never sniff the Hall of fame. Why doesnt he get the benefit of the doubt in spite of a short career?

the best comparison i have for Larkin is Kirby Puckett. he also was a great player who played a key defensive position very well, but had a short career. He barely had 2300 hits, a shade over 1000 rbis and a just 207 career homers. he was a hit machine, but didnt walk, so his career OBP was just .360. Career slugging at .477. Didnt steal many bases (12 per year)...but he got injured and everyone seems to overlook the fact that his numbers just simply are not HOF quality. he was likeable, and maybe that has more to do with it than we want to admit.

Given we now have Pucket and Larkin, 2 seemingly underqualified good guys, in the HOF, are we going to see Edgar martinez get his name called soon? People in Seattle argue that he's the best DH ever, and i simply say he was so bad on defense that they made him a DH. lots of different points of view on that, but no question that he gets no HOF consideration for any defensive contributions. 309 career HR, 514 2b, not quite 2300 hits (2247), 1283 walks.... no speed at all. 10 seasons of .300 or better, including 10 of the 12 seasons where he played 100 or more games. So the argument here also is that Edgar just wasnt healthy enough to stay in the lineup (much like larkin). Should be interesting for Edgar, and my view is that he doesnt have a chance, but then again i would have said the same thing about Larkin just due to his lack of duability and career numbers.

Here is a question. How many ESPN guys get to vote on the HOF? How long has Larkin worked for them? How many of those voters changed their votes from "no" to "yes" since he came on board? It would be revealing (one way or another) to know this. Or, has his general exposure as part of the ESPN crew improved his "stature" among other voters who undoubtably watch him on baseball tonight?

Anyway, congrats to Barry larkin.

[Jumpy]

I have a hard time with this mainly because baseball as a whole was a messed up institution during the Steroid Era.

I think McGwire, Bonds, Clemens et al. deserve to be in the HoF. But once they get in there should be a note/plaque/whatever explaining the era to future generations. Explain how there was no testing and a good majority of players were using. It's an easy fix for such a widespread problem.

Or, maintain the high standards of the Hall and don't let those guys in and you won't have a messy Steroid Wing in Cooperstown.

[BBC 08]

Or, maintain the high standards of the Hall and don't let those guys in and you won't have a messy Steroid Wing in Cooperstown.

What standards? Statistical standards? Moral standards? Statistically these guys deserve to be in. As for moral standards, I don't believe morality should be a part of the voting process.

[XU 87]

My bad on the all star selections- he apparently was on the team 12 times, the ESPN data started in 1993, so he had 4 appearances prior to then. he must have had 2 games where he didnt appear.



That was a big one you missed and arguably the biggest credential he has for getting in the HOF.

[XU 87]

What standards? Statistical standards? Moral standards? Statistically these guys deserve to be in. As for moral standards, I don't believe morality should be a part of the voting process.

I don't think it's about morality. It's about how certain players artificially, illegally, and in violation of the rules of baseball, padded their stats.

[BBC 08]

I don't think it's about morality. It's about how certain players artificially, and illegally, padded their stats.

Again, it wasn't illegal in the eyes of MLB. They turned their head and allowed the Steroid Era to take place.

[chico]

It's been generally acknowledged - I think - that steroids can add something like 10% to the length a ball travels. Whatever the distance is, it would be a pretty simple function to apply that distance to the home runs a guy like McGwire hit and see just how many he would have hit had he not taken steroids.

I know it would not be a very exact science because who knows if those balls would have been caught or not, but it at least could be something you could quantify when trying to get a picture of what the stats should have been had steroids not been involved.

And I don't buy the "not against the rules of the game" argument. It was illegal in the eyes of the law - it should not make a difference if it was not banned by MLB. It certainly can be a pretty good inference that if a substance is illegal it has no place being used.

[XU 87]

Again, it wasn't illegal in the eyes of MLB. They turned their head and allowed the Steroid Era to take place.

It was illegal. Fay Vincent sent a memo out in 1991 reminding all the teams that steroid use was against the MLB rules since it involved the use of illegal drugs.

But obviously there was no steroid testing. I'm not sure what MLB did in the 90's, if anything, to try to get testing. But the union certainly would never permit it. The only reason we got testing is because congress stepped in.

[chico]

My bad on the all star selections- he apparently was on the team 12 times, the ESPN data started in 1993, so he had 4 appearances prior to then. he must have had 2 games where he didnt appear.

As far as defense goes, any argument vs. Ozzie Smith is just silly. Ozzie is the absolute best defensive shortstop ever. You can see it in the defensive numbers, and you can just "see it" by watching the games.

The argument that Ozzie Smith was winning gold gloves when he shouldn't have is weak also. He played until he was 41, but his last Gold Glove (his 13th in a row) came when he was 37. Beyond that, yeah his skills diminished, and he wasn't the best in the league anymore, so yeah the time would come, but who's to say he should have won it one MORE year as opposed to one less year. And he won 13 vs. 3 for larkin. How many do you want to say were undeserved? And by the way, the winner of the award the first year after Ozzie....Jay Bell (not Larkin).

I'll give you that there is no compariosn offensively between Ozzie and larkin. Larkin was a top/middle of the order hitter while Ozzie was a top / bottom of the order hitter. Larkin wins on average and power, hands down. Ozzie had 200 more stolen bases at a slightly lower success percentage (83% vs. 80%). I think an offensive contribution that is often overlooked is Ozzie's willingness to take pitches, bunt, hit the other way, and hit and run in an effort to allow the Cardinals running game to operate. All told, Ozzie is a below average offense player in general, but a slightly above average one as a shortstop. Larkin is clearly among the top 3% of offensive players at his position, and was one of the very best ever during his time (the slugging shortstop has since evolved, diminishing some of larkins achievements).

But to me, it's just the lack of career numbers and longevity. He's 139th in career games played and 131st in hits. 108th in runs, and 142nd in plate appearances. Usually this weeds guys out. Why isn't Dale Murphy in the HOF? Really it's just becasue his career was a little too short, but while he played he was the premier slugger in the NL. But he played the EXACT same amount of games at Larkin.

How about bernie Williams? Played 100 less games than larkin and played a key defensive position. he had a similarly productive career, on a VERY good team. But he'll never sniff the Hall of fame. Why doesnt he get the benefit of the doubt in spite of a short career?

the best comparison i have for Larkin is Kirby Puckett. he also was a great player who played a key defensive position very well, but had a short career. He barely had 2300 hits, a shade over 1000 rbis and a just 207 career homers. he was a hit machine, but didnt walk, so his career OBP was just .360. Career slugging at .477. Didnt steal many bases (12 per year)...but he got injured and everyone seems to overlook the fact that his numbers just simply are not HOF quality. he was likeable, and maybe that has more to do with it than we want to admit.

Given we now have Pucket and Larkin, 2 seemingly underqualified good guys, in the HOF, are we going to see Edgar martinez get his name called soon? People in Seattle argue that he's the best DH ever, and i simply say he was so bad on defense that they made him a DH. lots of different points of view on that, but no question that he gets no HOF consideration for any defensive contributions. 309 career HR, 514 2b, not quite 2300 hits (2247), 1283 walks.... no speed at all. 10 seasons of .300 or better, including 10 of the 12 seasons where he played 100 or more games. So the argument here also is that Edgar just wasnt healthy enough to stay in the lineup (much like larkin). Should be interesting for Edgar, and my view is that he doesnt have a chance, but then again i would have said the same thing about Larkin just due to his lack of duability and career numbers.

Here is a question. How many ESPN guys get to vote on the HOF? How long has Larkin worked for them? How many of those voters changed their votes from "no" to "yes" since he came on board? It would be revealing (one way or another) to know this. Or, has his general exposure as part of the ESPN crew improved his "stature" among other voters who undoubtably watch him on baseball tonight?

Anyway, congrats to Barry larkin.

Is LH's last name Hettel?

[LadyMuskie]

http://reds.enquirer.com/larkin/gallery/larkin3.jpg

Just wanted to share this image. I've heard Byron on the radio a few times since the announcement and he is genuinely happy for his big brother - as he should be. The Larkin family is a great family and a true asset to the City of Cincinnati!

[Smails]

Here is a question. How many ESPN guys get to vote on the HOF? How long has Larkin worked for them? How many of those voters changed their votes from "no" to "yes" since he came on board? It would be revealing (one way or another) to know this. Or, has his general exposure as part of the ESPN crew improved his "stature" among other voters who undoubtably watch him on baseball tonight?

Anyway, congrats to Barry larkin.

Did you really go there? Talk about grasping at straws..

You sound quite foolish on this thread. You started with innaccurate stats and then shifted to durability, longevity and cross-position comparisons. Then you top it off with conspiracy theory 101?

[Juice]

Oh sorry that I have an actual job that prevented me at the time to just neg rep you and not post about why Ozzie is better.

First, let's look at WAR.
Ozzie - http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/s/smito001.htm
Larkin - http://www.baseballprojection.com/war/l/larkb001.htm

Larkin beats Ozzie by 4 wins over the course of a 19 year career. In my mind, that's not that much since it averages out to .2 wins a year.

Now lets look at fielding.
Ozzie - 13 GG
Larkin - 3 GG

Range Factor per Game
Ozzie - 5.03
Larkin - 4.32

That's all I can find now on short notice.

Sorry, Ozzie was better.

WAR takes into account defense, so overall looking at hitting and fielding, Larking was the better player.

And counting the amount of Gold Gloves is useless. Palmeiro won a GG while only playing 28 games at first base and DHing the rest of the year. The entire award is based on reputation.

[SM#24]

And counting the amount of Gold Gloves is useless. Palmeiro won a GG while only playing 28 games at first base and DHing the rest of the year. The entire award is based on reputation.

Yeah, but he obviously played those 28 games amazingly well.
That was the most ridiculous vote in the history of baseball. I'm not sure how many guys vote on the Gold Gloves, but if only one voter had voted for Palmiero, I would have considered that a travesty. The fact that several voters had to have voted for him in order for him to actually win the award defies all logic.

[SM#24]

Given we now have Pucket and Larkin, 2 seemingly underqualified good guys, in the HOF
Good luck with coming to the message board of a school based in Cincinnati whose all-time leading scorer is his brother and trying to get people to take this point of view seriously.

[paulxu]

What standards? Statistical standards? Moral standards? Statistically these guys deserve to be in. As for moral standards, I don't believe morality should be a part of the voting process.

Ah ha !! I am in the right thread after all.

FREE PETE !

[Smails]

Given we now have Pucket and Larkin, 2 seemingly underqualified good guys, in the HOF,

You might want to do some reading on Kirby Pucket before labeling him a good guy and mentioning him in the same breath as Barry larkin when it comes to character issues.

[_LH]

I'm happy for Larkin and the Reds that Barry got in. I don't understand the voters. Larkin gets in with 86% of the vote with the following stats:

.295 BA
198 HR
2,340 Hits
960 RBIs
12 All Star Games (worthless stat IMO but everyone cites it in HOF credentials)
3 Gold Gloves
9 Silver Sluggers
1 World Series Title
1 MVP

Trammell annually gets less than 20% of the vote and will probably never be voted in by the writers with the following stats:

.285 BA
185 HR
2,365 Hits
1,003 RBIs
6 All Star Games
4 Gold Gloves
3 Silver Slugger
1 World Series Title

Now, across the board Larkin's stats are better than Trammell's but in many categories they are almost identical over the same time frame. One gets in with 86% of the vote in year 3 while the other will likey never get voted in.

[BBC 08]

Ah ha !! I am in the right thread after all.

FREE PETE !

I agree. Pete should be in the Hall.

[wkrq59]

This is not business it's personal. Until that building in Cooperstown, New York includes the name and bust of Peter Edward Rose, the so-called Baseball Hall of Fame does not exist as far as I am concerned and I'll go to my grave carrying that belief which considering my age is a pretty serious likelihood.
Still, I am extremely happy for Barry Larkin, for his mom Shirley and his dad Bob, his brothers and sister Barbara, Michael, Byron and Stephen. I was fortunate enough to cover Byron's career during his last three seasons at Xavier and I can say I never enjoyed a reporter/athlete relationship with any of the young men and women I dealt with over a 40-year career more than I did with Byron and his family.
I loved to think of the Larkins in one particular way and I haven't changed that belief. Bob Larkin was the Supreme Count Chief Justice of the Larkin Family and Shirley was the only lawyer licensed to practice before him.
The Larkins, from early childhood, were governed by a few simple rules based in faith and love. One which stuck out for me was "The next highest in line took care of the kid on the lower rung. Barbara had Mike's back and Mike Barry's and Barry Byron's and Byron Stephen'.
They all had Shirley's back. One day, Shirley, working at school as a room mom, saw a kid who was a dime short for a necessary cafeteria lunch purchase. She lent the kid a dime. Two or three weeks later she saw the kid in the lunch line and jokingly asked the kid, "Where's my dime?"
Unfortunately, Barry and Byron happened to hear the query and didn't consider it a joke. When the kid came crying to Shirley with the dime the next day, she had a couple of problems, making the kid understand she was joking, and explaining to her two sons that first, it was a joke, and second, neither Barry not Byron was a member of the Cincinnati Corelone family empowered to threaten the extinction of the kid if he didn't pay back the damn dime.
The other was a similar story but showed how seriously the Larkins stood up for each other. Stephen, a freshman at Moeller, came home one day when either Barry or Mike, I forget which, happened to be home. Stephen was crying and either Mike or Barry had trouble getting him to explain why.
I was at Xavier interviewing Byron during his senior year for a major feature story in The Post. Byron got a phone call. He was in a relaxed, jolly, typically easy-going Byron-like mood often releasing that tell-tale laugh of his you sometimes hear on the radio today.
When he got the call, his mood changed as if someone had told him a relative died. He was very serious and measured when he hung up. He answered further questions perfunctorily and seemed distracted. I asked him what was wrong and asked him why he was suddenly so serious. He said, "Oh, some kid pissed in Stephen's shoulder pads at school and I have to take care of things."
Remembering the story of the dime, I asked him if I should call Moeller and warn them of impending disaster and then, "You aren't going to do anything stupid and ruin your career here at X and your future, are you?" He burst forth with that laugh and then turned stone cold serious and said, "Things will be taken care of in a proper way." Then he excused himself and left the room.
I asked Byron a few days later how the shoulder pads thing worked out? He said, "Everything wa taken care of and no one was hurt." He did not elaborate and wouldn't talk about it later. But he didn't smile the entire time which was unusual for Byron.
It was my misfortune not to have more opportunities to interact with Barry Larkin, but the few times I talked to him I found him to be first, a Larkin, and that more than all his achievements as a baseball player qualifies him for any if not the hall of fame. :)

[nuts4xu]

I'm happy for Larkin and the Reds that Barry got in. I don't understand the voters. Larkin gets in with 86% of the vote with the following stats:

.295 BA
198 HR
2,340 Hits
960 RBIs
12 All Star Games (worthless stat IMO but everyone cites it in HOF credentials)
3 Gold Gloves
9 Silver Sluggers
1 World Series Title
1 MVP

Trammell annually gets less than 20% of the vote and will probably never be voted in by the writers with the following stats:

.285 BA
185 HR
2,365 Hits
1,003 RBIs
6 All Star Games
4 Gold Gloves
3 Silver Slugger
1 World Series Title

Now, across the board Larkin's stats are better than Trammell's but in many categories they are almost identical over the same time frame. One gets in with 86% of the vote in year 3 while the other will likey never get voted in.

This has been covered. You are wrong.

[_LH]

This has been covered. You are wrong.

Nope but nice try.

[LadyMuskie]

Parts of this thread are giving me a headache.

[GoMuskies]

Pete Rose is a POS who broke the cardinal rule of baseball. I hope he never gets in (or at least doesn't get in until he's dead, so we don't have to endure a Rose Hall of Fame induction weekend and him going on QVC and selling the right to be mentioned in his speech).

[bobbiemcgee]

What standards? Statistical standards? Moral standards? Statistically these guys deserve to be in. As for moral standards, I don't believe morality should be a part of the voting process.

The stats were fudged due to the 'roid use. Morally? You picked up 5 mph and five million on your fastball over the schlub next to you in the bullpen when you knew you were cheating.

[BandAid]

A big time congratulations to Barry Larkin. He deserves to be there. Statistics are important, but I don't buy into them as much as others do (which is why Blyleven last year bothers me a little). I think there is something to be said for simply being an iconic player during your generation a la Kirby Puckett. Larkin belongs both statistically and iconically (is that a word?)

On a personal level,

I am stoked. My roommate and I are tentatively planning to make our way to Cooperstown for the induction. It will be my first time going to the Hall. He will be rocking the Larkin jersey, and I, a throwback Santo jersey. I'm happy for Larkin. I'm happy for the Reds. I'm happy for Cincinnati. He would say the same thing about Santo, the Cubs, and Chicago. Two good men, two great careers, a day worth celebrating, and one sentence without a verb.

[paulxu]

Pete Rose is a POS who broke the cardinal rule of baseball. I hope he never gets in (or at least doesn't get in until he's dead, so we don't have to endure a Rose Hall of Fame induction weekend and him going on QVC and selling the right to be mentioned in his speech).

He is probably a POS (he's life in the Check-out Line Rags is really, really weird) and he did break somebody's cardinal rule.

But (ain't there always a "but"), he did that after his days as a player were over. A lot of players did a lot of stupid things when their playing days were over.

Just as a player, for those years on the field, I'd give him a slot. Hell, put an asterick next to it if you have to, to note the post player stupidity.

[MHettel]

A big time congratulations to Barry Larkin. He deserves to be there. Statistics are important, but I don't buy into them as much as others do (which is why Blyleven last year bothers me a little). I think there is something to be said for simply being an iconic player during your generation a la Kirby Puckett. Larkin belongs both statistically and iconically (is that a word?) .

I agree that iconicaly, he looks to be a hall of famer. A rare "2-way" shortstop in an age where shortstops just didnt hit.

But statistically, he isnt close. Not even close.

[SM#24]

He is probably a POS (he's life in the Check-out Line Rags is really, really weird) and he did break somebody's cardinal rule.

But (ain't there always a "but"), he did that after his days as a player were over. A lot of players did a lot of stupid things when their playing days were over.

Just as a player, for those years on the field, I'd give him a slot. Hell, put an asterick next to it if you have to, to note the post player stupidity.

I'm fine with the "after his days as a player were over"; however he was a Manager at the time, which I think is worse. He's in a position of authority.
Does his time as a manager have anything to do with his accomplishments as a player ? No, but I have no problems with his "punishment" no matte rhow disconnected it is. No Gambling is the Cardinal rule of sports. Once the public loses faith in whether the games are on the up and up; then the sport dies.
He should also be banned for sheer arrogance.

[waggy]

I hope they put him in before he's dead (he should be in), but not until he's so old all he can muster is a wave. I can do without a speech from him.

[SM#24]

Trammell annually gets less than 20% of the vote and will probably never be voted in by the writers with the following stats:


Agree that Trammell should be in and will never get in, at least through the 15 year process. He actually got 37% this year (up from 24% last year).

[chico]

He should be in the hall for what he did as a player but banned from baseball for what he did as a manager.

[LadyMuskie]

The Hall of Fame is littered with the names of men who were less than perfect and who committed any number of crimes and sins. Pete Rose would be just one of that number. If Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb can "grace" the halls of Cooperstown, then so too can Pete Rose.

And Pete Rose is one of the funniest, most self-deprecating people I've ever had the pleasure to meet and listen to. He can spin a tail like nobody's business and he doesn't take himself too seriously. He reminds me a lot of Pete Gillen in that way. Maybe it has something to do with the name Peter.

[Juice]

I agree that iconicaly, he looks to be a hall of famer. A rare "2-way" shortstop in an age where shortstops just didnt hit.

But statistically, he isnt close. Not even close.

Compared to who? Babe Ruth?

Compared to other shortstops he is a no doubter.

[SM#24]

But statistically, he isnt close. Not even close.

So your HOF includes only about 2 shortstops in over 100 years of baseball ?

[X-band '01]

I'm happy for Larkin and the Reds that Barry got in. I don't understand the voters. Larkin gets in with 86% of the vote with the following stats:

.295 BA
198 HR
2,340 Hits
960 RBIs
12 All Star Games (worthless stat IMO but everyone cites it in HOF credentials)
3 Gold Gloves
9 Silver Sluggers
1 World Series Title
1 MVP

Trammell annually gets less than 20% of the vote and will probably never be voted in by the writers with the following stats:

.285 BA
185 HR
2,365 Hits
1,003 RBIs
6 All Star Games
4 Gold Gloves
3 Silver Slugger
1 World Series Title

Now, across the board Larkin's stats are better than Trammell's but in many categories they are almost identical over the same time frame. One gets in with 86% of the vote in year 3 while the other will likey never get voted in.

I guess another strike against Trammell is that he was maybe the 2nd or 3rd best shortstop in the American League during his playing days. Cal Ripken Jr was the gold standard in the American League. I was surprised (in a good way) just how much support Larkin got on his first ballot. Given the additional votes he got last year, it seemed inevitable that he would be voted in this year. While his one WS title matches Trammell, he also has a huge edge in Silver Slugger awards plus an MVP award. Trammell cannot match that.


The Hall of Fame is littered with the names of men who were less than perfect and who committed any number of crimes and sins. Pete Rose would be just one of that number. If Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb can "grace" the halls of Cooperstown, then so too can Pete Rose.


Sorry. Rose committed the cardinal sin of gambling - you will not find anywhere in the Hall anyone with such an association. It's a simple fact that people in Cincy either take a long time to admit to or they just won't admit it at all.

[MHettel]

Consider a player that has this season :

148 games played
585 AB
90 Runs
177 Hits
31 Doubles
6 triples
7 HR
55 RBI
8 SB
6 Runs
.303 Average
.367 OBP
.409 Slg

This guy is defeinsively versatile, but generally average.

Is this guy a Hall of Famer? Not in my book. But what if he does this 26 times? Now he's Pete Rose. So really, Pete's ENTIRE HOF "portfolio" is based on his durability and longevity. He was a solid player, who did it longer than almost anyone else, and thats enough to get him into the hall. I agree with that entirely. The fact that he isnt in there should be set aside.

Now, look at Ralph Kiner. 10 year career. 7 time HR champ 369 career dingers. 1015 RBI, .279 average, drew alot of walks, no speed. Not even 1500 career hits. So this guy is the opposite of Rose. He dominates for a very short period of time, and gets in. this is a case where his short stretch of dominate numbers overcame his lack of longevity

But with larkin, we IGNORE the durability and longevity discussion. But his numbers arent dominant either.

the voters have always worked both ends of teh spectrum like that. Giant career numbers will get you in. Or a short stint as a one of the most dominant guys in the league will get you in.

Would you vote for the following?
Pedro martinez
Dwight Gooden
Darryl Strawberry
Bernie Williams
David Cone

[MHettel]

More....(sorry, i'm hooked).


larkin is 14th in career games played at SS.

ahead of Larkin on the list is Edgar Renteria (#12), who if he plays 2 more years, will statistically overtake Larkin. larkin has more pop, and some more speed (3b and SB), but Renteria is only 13 hits behind him. ALrkin has an advantage in BA (.294 vs. .286) that will probably get wider as time goes by, but Edgar is on pace to exceed Larkins career statistics. And he's got 2 WS rings, both with the winning hit. I dont see any chance that he makes the HOF.

Trammel is ahead of him on the list, and i agree that it's close between teh 2. Larkin would be my choice at SS, but the HOF voting certainly indicates a bigger gap between them than what i believe exists.

Omar Visquel will be interesting when he comes eligible (he's got to retire first). He's played 2699 games at SS, most all time and 118 more than the next guy. He played 614 MORE games at short than larkin did. Thats nearly 4 full seasons. He's got 2800+ hits, 400 SB, a respectable .272 average, 1000 walks and 11 Gold Gloves. I guess he's a lock, right?

Miguel Tejada is another tough one. still active and about 1 full season behind Larkin in terms of games played. over 300 career HR. Nearly 1300 RBIs, lots of doubles, and iron-man stretch of 6 years without missing a game. No Gold Gloves, 8 times he received MVP votes. No Speed. But didnt he get suspended for roids? no chance in my mind.

Jimmy Rollins is about 3 full seasons behind larkin as well. He's got some numbers, with 1866 hits 388 doubles, 100 triples and 170 HRs. His speed numbers are nearly identical to Larkin. He's been an MVP and he's got 3 gold gloves. He's probably the most similar player yeat to Larkin that i've found. larkin has a lead in BA and OPB, but Rollins has the advantage in power. if he gives us 3 more decent years is he in the HOF too? Time will tell.

[LadyMuskie]

Sorry. Rose committed the cardinal sin of gambling - you will not find anywhere in the Hall anyone with such an association. It's a simple fact that people in Cincy either take a long time to admit to or they just won't admit it at all.

You won't find anyone in the Hall with a KNOWN association for gambling. I don't believe for one second, and you shouldn't either, that there aren't men in the Hall who gambled on baseball but were never caught. I am just as sure that there are men in the Hall who took illegal performance enhancing drugs and weren't caught.

[Fireball]

Larkin deserves to be in, as does Rose. Love the statistical analysis, but you have to look past that sometimes. Larkin, the complete package, was the best shortstop in the NL, and maybe the game, from the late 80's to the mid 90's. He did not compile all of the counting stats due to injuries, but thankfully the HOF voters are able to look past that and realize that he truly belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[XUOWNSUC]

Whenever I see people analyzing Larkin's statistics, they seem to overlook the fact that Larkin deserved a few more Gold Gloves than he actually got. Ozzie Smith got a couple towards the end of his career that should have went to Larkin.

[Juice]

More....(sorry, i'm hooked).


larkin is 14th in career games played at SS.

ahead of Larkin on the list is Edgar Renteria (#12), who if he plays 2 more years, will statistically overtake Larkin. larkin has more pop, and some more speed (3b and SB), but Renteria is only 13 hits behind him. ALrkin has an advantage in BA (.294 vs. .286) that will probably get wider as time goes by, but Edgar is on pace to exceed Larkins career statistics. And he's got 2 WS rings, both with the winning hit. I dont see any chance that he makes the HOF.

Trammel is ahead of him on the list, and i agree that it's close between teh 2. Larkin would be my choice at SS, but the HOF voting certainly indicates a bigger gap between them than what i believe exists.

Omar Visquel will be interesting when he comes eligible (he's got to retire first). He's played 2699 games at SS, most all time and 118 more than the next guy. He played 614 MORE games at short than larkin did. Thats nearly 4 full seasons. He's got 2800+ hits, 400 SB, a respectable .272 average, 1000 walks and 11 Gold Gloves. I guess he's a lock, right?

Miguel Tejada is another tough one. still active and about 1 full season behind Larkin in terms of games played. over 300 career HR. Nearly 1300 RBIs, lots of doubles, and iron-man stretch of 6 years without missing a game. No Gold Gloves, 8 times he received MVP votes. No Speed. But didnt he get suspended for roids? no chance in my mind.

Jimmy Rollins is about 3 full seasons behind larkin as well. He's got some numbers, with 1866 hits 388 doubles, 100 triples and 170 HRs. His speed numbers are nearly identical to Larkin. He's been an MVP and he's got 3 gold gloves. He's probably the most similar player yeat to Larkin that i've found. larkin has a lead in BA and OPB, but Rollins has the advantage in power. if he gives us 3 more decent years is he in the HOF too? Time will tell.

You are comparing players in different eras and you are only looking at counting statistics. Look at Adjusted OPS+.
Larkin = 116
Omar Vizquel = 82
Rollins = 97
Tejada = 108

The only player that is close is Miguel Tejada, and he hasn't regularly played SS in years and when he did was widely regarded as a pretty awful one.

[ThrowDownDBrown]

Whenever I see people analyzing Larkin's statistics, they seem to overlook the fact that Larkin deserved a few more Gold Gloves than he actually got. Ozzie Smith got a couple towards the end of his career that should have went to Larkin.

And that he missed a total of over 4 seasons due to injury

[MHettel]

Whenever I see people analyzing Larkin's statistics, they seem to overlook the fact that Larkin deserved a few more Gold Gloves than he actually got. Ozzie Smith got a couple towards the end of his career that should have went to Larkin.

This is what I dont get. Ozzie Smith won the Gold Glove. Barry Larkin did not. Someone has already ruled on this issue.

Ozzie won 13. larkin won 3. How about i give you 3 of those and we call it 10 vs. 6. Does that somehow help the discussion?

And by the way, the guy that broke Ozzie's streak was jay Bell, not Barry Larkin.

[MHettel]

You are comparing players in different eras and you are only looking at counting statistics. Look at Adjusted OPS+.
Larkin = 116
Omar Vizquel = 82
Rollins = 97
Tejada = 108

The only player that is close is Miguel Tejada, and he hasn't regularly played SS in years and when he did was widely regarded as a pretty awful one.

I'm afraid i dont know what those numbers mean. 116 is what?

i'm interested, i just dont know what you mean.

[MHettel]

And that he missed a total of over 4 seasons due to injury

This helps your argument in what way?

[Juice]

I'm afraid i dont know what those numbers mean. 116 is what?

i'm interested, i just dont know what you mean.

On-base Plus Slugging Plus (OPS+) has not gained as much widespread acceptance, but is a more informative metric than OPS. This statistic normalizes a player’s OPS – it adjusts for small variables that might affect OPS score (e.g. park effect) and puts the statistic on an easy-to-understand scale. A 100 OPS+ is league average, and each point up or down is one percentage point above or below league average. In other words, if a player had a 90 OPS+ last season, that means their OPS was 10% below league average. Also, since OPS+ adjusts for league and park effects, it’s possible to use OPS+ to compare players from different years and on different teams.

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/offense/ops/

[MHettel]

i'll take a look.

[XUOWNSUC]

This is what I dont get. Ozzie Smith won the Gold Glove. Barry Larkin did not. Someone has already ruled on this issue.

Ozzie won 13. larkin won 3. How about i give you 3 of those and we call it 10 vs. 6. Does that somehow help the discussion?

And by the way, the guy that broke Ozzie's streak was jay Bell, not Barry Larkin.


Yes it does help the discussion. Because there are idiots out there who compare Alan Trammell's 4 Gold Gloves to Barry Larkin's 3 and then point to that and say that Trammell is clearly the better fielder. "Someone has already ruled on the issue" - that's a bunch of crap. Sometimes it seems like Gold Gloves are awarded in similar fashion to All-Star and Pro-Bowl selections in that name recognition goes a long way in determining who gets what.

[SixFig]

Rafael Palmeiro played 28 games at 1st base in 1999. He won the Gold glove. Nuff said.

[Juice]

Yes it does help the discussion. Because there are idiots out there who compare Alan Trammell's 4 Gold Gloves to Barry Larkin's 3 and then point to that and say that Trammell is clearly the better fielder. "Someone has already ruled on the issue" - that's a bunch of crap. Sometimes it seems like Gold Gloves are awarded in similar fashion to All-Star and Pro-Bowl selections in that name recognition goes a long way in determining who gets what.

"I don't know what you're talking about XUOWNSUC" - Derek Jeter

[MHettel]

I realize that the gold glove award is not perfect and is largely subjective. just like maybe winning an award for a movie. It's opinion that matters most. You could have a best supporting actor award for a guy thats in a movie for 15 minutes in 2 scenes. he was clearly the best, give him the award. it's about what you see.... So take that logic and apply it to Palmiero. Not one voter DIDNT realize that Palmiero was DHing. they just still knew he was the best fielding first baseman in the AL, and didnt want to reward some ironglove with an award.


...Anyway, the Larkin argument has swayed in his favor in my mind. Is he one of the 10 most complete shortstops of all time: yes. that durability and longevity issue weighs on me though. And the general lack of winning (no offense).

I just found all the voting results from the HOF since 1939, laid out in a table format, going down to the top 8 in voting each year, including the percentages. I'm intested in seeing how many guys had such a quick increase in their vote count overa 3 year period.

I gotta go with my instinct still. larkin is a marginal HOFer, with all the skills and a lack of cumulative numbers. But timing is everything, and he's sandwiched between several guys that are still being punished for steriod use, and next years class which includes at least 2 guys they cannot ignore.

In my opinion, Next year is "d-Day" on the steriod era. If you dont vote barry and Roger in, then I dont know what the heck happens. mcGwire and Palmeiro will expire off the ballot after some time. there has to be a "first" steriod guy to make it, but they ned it to happen before some of the other guys fall off the ballot.

[wkrq59]

I often throw in a comment or my feelings about Pete Rose just to see how long it takes for normally rational posters to go absolutely ape shit about Rose because basically they fear that someday while he is still alive he may actually get in the Baseball Hall of Fame. There are so many reasons why he should never have been excluded in the first place but I don't bother to go into it because frankly it's pearls to swine regarding those who despise him.
If he were a New Yorker who played in New York, the Bronx or Brooklyn, he'd have been in long ago. Gambling, schmabling. Today, most baseball teams accept advertising from casinos which at last look include some form of betting on baseball.
Forget about defending Barry Larkin's election with or without his stats. Damnit, he is a Cincinnati native whose family has been almost synonymous with this city. And he is the brother of one of the two greatest basketball players ever in Xavier's long and storied history.
Oh, and in case somebody forgot, Xavier 76, UC 53.:eek::p:rolleyes:

[GoMuskies]

Today, most baseball teams accept advertising from casinos which at last look include some form of betting on baseball.


I always hate to have facts get in the way of your posts when you get rolling, but there is no Major League Baseball team in Nevada. All of those casinos that advertise in MLB stadiums are located in states other than Nevada. There is no legal casino sports betting outside of Nevada in the United States.

Rose did the crime, so he has to do the time. He's made millions of dollars off not getting into the Hall of Fame, though, so don't feel too sorry for him.

[_LH]

I guess another strike against Trammell is that he was maybe the 2nd or 3rd best shortstop in the American League during his playing days. Cal Ripken Jr was the gold standard in the American League. I was surprised (in a good way) just how much support Larkin got on his first ballot. Given the additional votes he got last year, it seemed inevitable that he would be voted in this year. While his one WS title matches Trammell, he also has a huge edge in Silver Slugger awards plus an MVP award. Trammell cannot match that.

I don't see that as being a strike but it does explain his low All Star appearances and his fewer Silver Slugger awards when he played in the same area of Ripken and Yount (both in the HOF).

I'm not a Trammell fan but the difference in votes for Larkin compared to Trammell seems strange when they have pretty much identical stats in BA, HR, Hits, RBIs and Gold Gloves.

[Smails]

This is what I dont get. Ozzie Smith won the Gold Glove. Barry Larkin did not. Someone has already ruled on this issue.

Ozzie's last few gold gloves are not up for debate but Larkin's HOF entry is?

You should try to apply your own logic this thread. Barry Larkin is in the HOF. A LOT of people have already ruled on this issue.

[pizza delivery]

I have a feeling there must be a lot of Barry Larkin disrespect in this thread, so I'm not even going to bother reading it. Shame on you whoever you are!

[Porkopolis]

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404349_207031159390870_100002519634325_438556_1709 682349_n.jpg

[SM#24]

You won't find anyone in the Hall with a KNOWN association for gambling. I don't believe for one second, and you shouldn't either, that there aren't men in the Hall who gambled on baseball but were never caught. I am just as sure that there are men in the Hall who took illegal performance enhancing drugs and weren't caught.

So let's put all the known gamblers in because there's a possibility someone is in who committed the same offense but didn't get caught ?
So let's free all the known criminals from jail because we know there are people roaming the streets that committed the same crimes but didn't get caught ?

Before Pete gets in, Joe Jackson should go in first. Unless of course, MHettel can statistically prove he's not worthy.

[SM#24]

I have a feeling there must be a lot of Barry Larkin disrespect in this thread, so I'm not even going to bother reading it. Shame on you whoever you are!

Actually very little and confined to one person.

[paulxu]

Does Drudy have a pair of those shorts with the Running Man?

[LadyMuskie]

So let's put all the known gamblers in because there's a possibility someone is in who committed the same offense but didn't get caught ?
So let's free all the known criminals from jail because we know there are people roaming the streets that committed the same crimes but didn't get caught ?

Before Pete gets in, Joe Jackson should go in first. Unless of course, MHettel can statistically prove he's not worthy.

Yup. That's what I said.

Pete Rose was one of the best players to ever play the game. He deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. That's the bottom line. If you can't move on from the mistakes he made, then that's on you, but they were mistakes made while he was a manager not while he was playing the game and he deserves to be recognized for the accomplishments he made. He is no different from all those men who were known alcoholics, drug addicts, wife beaters, etc. who are in the Hall and who got in because everyone looked the other way.

I don't know anyone who didn't think Mark McGwire was juicing when he looked like a house and had in the past been less muscular and bulky. However I also don't know anyone who thought he wasn't a lock for the Hall until Jose Canseco needed some extra cash and started giving interviews and writing books. Same goes for Pete. It was a witch hunt and Giamatti hated Pete Rose, so here we are.

[GoMuskies]

He is no different from all those men who were known alcoholics, drug addicts, wife beaters, etc. who are in the Hall and who got in because everyone looked the other way.

Actually, he is.

[BlueGuy]

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404349_207031159390870_100002519634325_438556_1709 682349_n.jpg

Where can I buy this print, suitable for framing? This is the perfect piece for a die-hard Xavier and Reds fan!

[Porkopolis]

Where can I buy this print, suitable for framing? This is the perfect piece for a die-hard Xavier and Reds fan!

I don't know. It was shared on Facebook by one of the Reds marketing people. It really is an awesome picture.

[waggy]

Sorry to go off-topic, but I'd like a pic of Kevin Frey Zip'n up the Richmond student section. Anybody?

[LadyMuskie]

Actually, he is.

No. He isn't. Being a criminal is being a criminal. If you're doing illegal drugs, then you're committing a crime. If you're beating your wife, girlfriend or anyone, then you're committing a crime. Unless, of course, the standards for the Hall are gamblers disallowed, criminals welcome. In that case, I guess it would be okay.

[GoMuskies]

Not all crimes are the same (and affect the integrity of the game the same way).

[SM#24]

A "crime" against the game of baseball is different than a crime against society.

[xu95]

No. He isn't. Being a criminal is being a criminal. If you're doing illegal drugs, then you're committing a crime. If you're beating your wife, girlfriend or anyone, then you're committing a crime. Unless, of course, the standards for the Hall are gamblers disallowed, criminals welcome. In that case, I guess it would be okay.

Illegal drugs are the same as far as I'm concerned (if you are talking about performance enhancing drugs), but beating your wife or being drunk is not against the rules of Major League Baseball, betting on your team is.

xu95

[SM#24]

It was a witch hunt and Giamatti hated Pete Rose, so here we are.

Hardly a witch hunt. The Commissioner's office received information that one of their MANAGERS was gambling on MLB games including games he managed. Were they not supposed to investigate it ?
Giamatti hated Rose because the allegations were true.

Pete Rose's arrogance did him in. Since 1920, there isn't a person employed in any way by MLB that isn't aware of the consequences for gambling on baseball. Yet, Rose did it anyway.

Yes, he was one of the greatest players that ever lived; and his accomplishments are recognized. He hasn't been removed from record books or the history of the game.

He is just banned from baseball which disqualifies him for election to the HOF based on the BBWA rules.

[Porkopolis]

Food for thought from the official Hall of Fame voting rules:

5. Voting: Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

That leaves a lot of latitude for voters when it comes to the impact of off the field antics.

[danaandvictory]

Pete Rose's arrogance did him in. Since 1920, there isn't a person employed in any way by MLB that isn't aware of the consequences for gambling on baseball. Yet, Rose did it anyway.

As he was tracking Cobb in the early 1980s, Rose spoke a lot about how he had studied Cobb's life. He must have skipped the chapter where Cobb and Tris Speaker were banned from baseball in the late 1920s for associating with gamblers, reinstated by Commissioner Landis only when their accuser backed off his story.

[chico]

Hardly a witch hunt. The Commissioner's office received information that one of their MANAGERS was gambling on MLB games including games he managed. Were they not supposed to investigate it ?
Giamatti hated Rose because the allegations were true.

Pete Rose's arrogance did him in. Since 1920, there isn't a person employed in any way by MLB that isn't aware of the consequences for gambling on baseball. Yet, Rose did it anyway.

Yes, he was one of the greatest players that ever lived; and his accomplishments are recognized. He hasn't been removed from record books or the history of the game.

He is just banned from baseball which disqualifies him for election to the HOF based on the BBWA rules.

Ueberroth went to Rose when he was bout to leave the commissioner's office with the information he had and told Pete he would suspend him for one year. Rose balked at the offer. Ueberroth told Rose that the guy taking his place (Giamatti) was not going to be so kind. Rose once again balked, claiming he never bet on baseball.

You're right on point saying arrogance did him in.

By the way, the BBWA was forced to change their rules after Rose was banned so that they could not vote for someone banned from MLB.

[LadyMuskie]

A "crime" against the game of baseball is different than a crime against society.

Yes, inasmuch as it doesn't matter hardly at all since the game of baseball is just a game. I for one think it is far worse to commit a crime against society (and says far more about one's character which is a trait to be considered by voters as pointed out by Porkopolis) than it is to commit a crime against "baseball". But, maybe I'm in the minority there. Maybe it does matter more that one gambled on baseball than it does for one to have been arrested for breaking the law. If it does, then that's a sad commentary. Pete belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[GoMuskies]

Maybe it does matter more that one gambled on baseball than it does for one to have been arrested for breaking the law.

In the context of the integrity of the game, of course it does.

Then again, with Pete one doesn't have to choose since he both bet on baseball AND is a felon.

[Juice]

If you still think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame, read this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15836

It's pretty long but well written.

[Porkopolis]

If you still think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame, read this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15836

It's pretty long but well written.

BP has been on the anti-Morris for HOF kick for a while. I agree with them 100%. As I heard Jaffe say on MLB Network yesterday: "Morris belongs in the Hall of Very Good, not the Hall of Fame." I wouldn't be upset if he gets in, but I wouldn't vote for him, either.

[X-band '01]

I wonder how much leeway Morris gets considering he's pitching in an era of the designated hitter - he was a career American League pitcher.

[Porkopolis]

I wonder how much leeway Morris gets considering he's pitching in an era of the designated hitter - he was a career American League pitcher.

His numbers, though, are not even great compared to pitchers of his own era. He was certainly very good but wasn't ever truly dominant.

[Juice]

I wonder how much leeway Morris gets considering he's pitching in an era of the designated hitter - he was a career American League pitcher.

He also pitched during a dead ball era.

[XU 87]

If you still think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame, read this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15836

It's pretty long but well written.

Interesting article. That 3.90 ERA is a big problem for getting in.

[BBC 08]

A Hall of Fame voter doesn't want a long ceremony so that's why he doesn't vote more than 2 to 4 players a year. I'm glad he is keeping players from entering the Hall. http://deadspin.com/5876605/

[Juice]

A Hall of Fame voter doesn't want a long ceremony so that's why he doesn't vote more than 2 to 4 players a year. I'm glad he is keeping players from entering the Hall. http://deadspin.com/5876605/

If you want to read some wonderful stuff by Murray Chass, go to firejoemorgan.com and type in his name. It amazes me how certain people got jobs at newspapers.

Murray has repeatedly stated that he hates blogs and bloggers but that his blog/website isn't a blog but just a place for him to place his columns online. Umm what?
http://www.murraychass.com/


This is a site for baseball columns, not for baseball blogs. The proprietor of the site is not a fan of blogs. He made that abundantly clear on a radio show with Charley Steiner when Steiner asked him what he thought of blogs and he replied, “I hate blogs.” He later heartily applauded Buzz Bissinger when the best-selling author denounced bloggers on a Bob Costas HBO show.

Bloggers, however, are welcome to visit this site; so are stats freaks, fantasy leaguers and Red Sox fans. How else will they know what is being said about them by a columnist they love to hate?

Otherwise, this site will most likely appeal primarily to older fans whose interest in good old baseball is largely ignored in this day of young bloggers who know it all, and new- fangled statistics (VORP, for one excuse-me example), which are drowning the game in numbers and making people forget that human beings, not numbers, play the games.

Murray Chass, who created this site, will do the column writing but will invite others to join him, the others being long-time columnists for daily newspapers who no longer work for newspapers. If you have a favorite columnist who is no longer actively writing and would like to be able to read his work again, please send a note and he or she will be invited to join the site.

E-mail comments are also invited, but visitors to the site are asked to omit the obscenities.

“I have spent my professional life in the print world, where obscenities don’t see the light of day,” Chass said. “They will remain in the dark here as well. It will be a good test for bloggers and Red Sox fans to see if they can control themselves.”

In addition, Chass noted that some of his grandchildren will likely visit the site, and they hear enough profanity in school without needing to read it here.

[BBC 08]

If you want to read some wonderful stuff by Murray Chass, go to firejoemorgan.com and type in his name. It amazes me how certain people got jobs at newspapers.

I am a big FJM fan. Also helps that two of the founders of FJM created one of the top two shows on tv today. (I'm referring to Parks and Rec with Community being the other great one)

[WCWIII]

I tried to look and search the internet, but do we know who will introduce Barry next week?